Tag Archives: politics

Fallout

Posted on by
Reply

Pfizer Inc and Allergan PLC terminated their planned $150 billion merger after the Obama administration took aim at the deal that would have moved the biggest drug company in the US to Ireland to lower its taxes.

Yup.  Because the Progressive administration Knows Better than business leaders how those businesses should be managed.

The decision to walk away is the latest setback in Pfizer’s long-running efforts to overcome what Chief Executive Ian Read has said was the company’s competitive disadvantage with foreign rivals that faced significantly lower tax bills.

Of course, Jack Lew, the Treasury Secretary whose tax rules the center of the administration’s aim, knew this would be part of the result.

In addition, the failed deal also hurts Pfizer’s plans to break itself up. Company executives have considered splitting the company for years….

Of course, Lew knew this, too.  This pattern of abuse makes me wonder how closely Lew is coordinating his actions with Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau MFWIC.

Hillary Clinton’s Immunity?

Posted on by
Reply

Fox Business News‘ Julia Limitone thinks Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will talk to the FBI “within days.”  In fact, she’ll apparently be talking directly with FBI Director James Comey.  Here’s the money quote from Limitone’s piece, though:

While a proffer agreement will protect what Clinton says during the meeting from being used in a court of law, [former federal prosecutor-turned-criminal defense attorney, Arthur] Aidala noted it can be used against her for leads.

Just how far does this proffer agreement extend?  How immune to prosecution is Comey making his hopefully future capo di tutt’i capi?

We Are Concerned

Posted on by
Reply

Or so they claim.

[T]he State Department admitted Tuesday the Obama administration has concerns about Tehran’s provocative ballistic missile program because of the possibility the long-range rockets could one day be used to carry a nuke….

So, what now?  President Barack Obama (D) will send his motorboat skipper cum State Department chair occupier out to shake his finger very firmly at the Ayatollahs?

She’s the Wrong Group

Posted on by
Reply

Only members of some, special, groups are allowed to speak at schools, it seems.

She is a liberal icon and was America’s first female secretary of state, but not everyone at a California college [Scripps College] is thrilled that “white feminist and repeated genocide enabler” Madeleine Albright has been lined up to give next month’s commencement address.

And

Scripps students did not object when Angela Davis, a radical-turned-academic who was on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted list for murder and kidnapping—spoke on campus earlier this year.

But that’s OK, though.  Davis is a member in good standing of an approved group—black “feminism”—and her political ideology—outright communism—is far more appropriate.

A Conservative’s View of American National Policy

Posted on by
Reply

My new book is out; see the links at the right to get it in Kindle format from amazon.com.  The book also is available here.

A Conservative’s View of American National Policy is the companion piece to A Conservative’s View of American Domestic Policy. Whereas Domestic Policy discussed internal affairs, National Policy is about our actions on the global stage.

My exposition centers on two things, the first of which is this: foreign and defense policy are more than closely related. They are not even mirror-images of each other; rather, they aren’t even tightly intertwined; they’re the same thing viewed from different perspectives. There are few, if any, aspects of foreign policy that do not inform defense policy, and there are even fewer aspects of defense policy that don’t affect foreign policy. We discuss these general policies and we have separate departmental heads representing them in the Executive Branch Cabinet only to facilitate our general understanding and the Cabinet Secretaries’ more efficient execution.

Accordingly, we need to understand the unity of foreign and defense policy as a single concept, not two related ones, then develop a unitary national policy that recognizes that necessary unity and that coordinates and maximizes the strengths of each, using each to compensate for the weaknesses of the other.

The other thing is this: after having made my case regarding the essential unity of foreign and defense policy, the rest of this effort will be concerned with what we should do with that unity, how we can put a national policy to use in a practical manner for our own betterment as a nation in a globally entangled world.

I propose an active policy of political engagement and military power projection. When and where we must act overtly militarily (rather than merely project our power to act), our objective must be victory. We should never engage in a fight with the purpose of a draw, as we did, for example, in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

Political engagement (and economic engagement as a tool of national policy) must be based on active policies designed to expand the geographic and popular reach of liberal democracy and individual freedom and contract the sphere of tyranny and oppression. In a world of global competition for hearts and minds, the contest between free men and subjects is most definitely a zero-sum game. We win and they lose, else it’ll be the other way around.